Archives

All posts for the month June, 2013

If there is one criticism against Tolkien that is not fair, then it is his position towards women. Often enough the author has been accused of being a macho, specially because of the lack of active women in the books. The movies, on the other hand, tried to avoid any problems with their feminine public. But the role that is given to Arwen in the movies is something that irks me greatly.

Let’s thus analyze a bit the role of women in Tolkien’s epic, so we understand the position of our heroines. Arwen, for example, the most un-mentioned character ever, and at the same time less involved than some others. Thus it would appear on first sight that she is just there to knit Aragorn’s banner and then be the ever-obedient wife. Only once she talks during the novel (at the end), and this only to give up her passage to the Undying Lands. For those who read the appendices may see more of her, but not much to change the general impression.
The first objection I have to make here is the fact that most readers forget here the setting of the book. It is a medieval world after all,and women are not bound to go out very much on adventure, thus limiting their role in a society that is,at its base, male-oriented.

The three ladies of the movie.

But even then, and that is the second objection, there are some other female characters that are much more important. For instance, there is Eowyn, shieldmaiden of Rohan, who not only defies her uncle’s will to be part of battle, but also manages to kill a Ringwraith (as a matter of fact, THE Ringwraith that is the most powerful). Some might argument that her turning after the battle into a healer is a return to her womanly role, but what does this make Faramir, who after the books turns quite literally into a gardener, as a healer of the land of Ithilien,ravaged by the forces of Mordor? I don’t think he becomes less a man because of him taking a similar career as his wife.
There are many more examples! Take Galadriel, not only the most powerful Elf next to Glorfindel and Elrond, but also with even more dialog and action than his husband. After all, the Ring tempted her,not Celeborn. For those who also read the Silmarillion, they will recognize Lúthien, who multiple times rescues her lover from Sauron himself! As far as I can see,the female characters in Tolkien tend to show an even greater strength than their male counterparts, even though they may be scarce in appearance.
How does this compare to the films? Well, there we don’t get to know the Silmarillion women, but still have a strong appearance by Galadriel and Eowyn. Both were pretty well represented in the movies, and I strongly believe they themselves made a good case about the situation of the women of Middle-Earth. Thus, for me, the inclusion of this warrior Arwen was unnecessary. I know they tried to connect to the feminine audience with her participation, but at the same time they created a weak Arwen. How so? She doubts Aragorn. The patience of Arwen in itself was a great proclamation of strength and love. She was a character with a lot to lose, since if Aragorn had failed in his quest, she would have died in vain in Middle-Earth. The easy solution for her was to leave to the Undying Lands, but in the books she stayed. Second,she did not return because of an unborn child, which, in my opinion, made her role as a subservient woman even stronger in the films. Now it turns out that all she wanted was to get pregnant? I understand that the child was the prospect of the new future, but the fact that she initially flinched unnerves me.Besides, there are two other women to look up to. Galadriel and Eowyn show other sides of feminism. Arwen chose in the books her face of being a woman to be less obvious, but she definitely represents loyalty and trust not only in the lover and King, but in the future of the world. Even at the cost of her own immortality. Isn’t that a stronger character? On the other hand, we also can observe that today, the choice of a good, home staying wife is not very well looked at, at least in urban circles. I somehow find that a little disappointing, since we have forgotten the nurturing side of our society. The depiction of Arwen in the movies clearly shows that the latter role of the woman is being forgotten, maybe even demonized. I know some cases of women that harshly condemn another woman for wanting t0 raise children and stay at home. But as Lois Griffin once said in a memorable Family Guy episode:

Look, I’m all for equality but if you ask me, feminism is about choice. I choose to be a wife and mother. And now I’m choosing to end this conversation.

As a guy who just gives opinions I love to create some discussion. As a man I am bound to make mistakes. But more often than not, sometimes I love to make mistakes. Such is the case of the new X-Box One controversy. At hearth I was pretty disappointed when Microsoft announced the limitations his games would obtain, even though I don’t play modern games anymore.
Now he good news arrived. It seems like they are going to drop the “features” and finally publish the games as the tradition goes: free to lend and free to resell. Just as a side note, I got wind of the news first through Blockbuster. They were the most interested in that development.
For me it was good to hear that even the “casual gamer” could not abide the new policies and it shows that we still have a voice. What Microsoft tried was terrible and I hope they learn from that experience, but believe me, something like this will be tried again.
I am glad to be wrong, that my last opinion was a false appreciation of the situation. Best mistake I made in a long time. But then, let’s not celebrate just yet.
May they smile upon your way!

As of late, after over two weeks of announcement, the new console presented by Microsoft has sparked some discussion amongst the gaming community. Most hardcore gamers have openly repudiated the decisions taken by the company to avoid piracy and occasionally getting a few bucks out of our credit card accounts. I think discussing the so called “features”, thus is not necessary anymore. What particularly interests me here is the future of gaming.
Some have come to interpret this little move as an end to console gaming, at least for Microsoft, since its machine focuses on so many features it does not know what role to play. From time to time you may hear even the word “sellout” to describe this. But then comes the obvious assertion that this is a business, where profit mandates the innovation.
This may seem at first glance as unimportant, since the video gaming industry has never been a charity, but then you forget that the situation has evolved since its early days. Even if unconscious, the video game market before had not the technology, neither the security to charge and overcharge. Consoles were not very popular, specially after the 80s crash, so they had to make playing a video game attractive. Today almost every person in the U.S. has at least one console or hand-held gaming device. Thus the market has broadened incredibly due to more spending power, free time and accessibility.
Let’s face it. Few games are still “Nintendo hard” and the amount of casual games, sports games and shooters has exploded. When in older times jocks shunned the consoles, today the nth installment of NFL Madden and similar games adorn their rooms. In a certain way, much of the creativity game designers have shown is buried underneath a landslide of generic games (although not all bad). Money can easily be made there.
This is similar to something I like to call the “IPhone 5” syndrome: almost everyone mocked the supposedly innovative new Smartphone, but at the end the lines were huge at the day of the launch. The same will happen here. Most complainers will end up buying the system, may it be on launch day or a little bit later. Game reviewers, critics and all will need the system to keep in business. Hardcore gamer may ignore it, but the public that buys the game is not them anymore. It is now the ones we like to insult as casual gamers. The difference is that they have the money and they don’t care as long as they can play Call of Duty.
In a capitalistic world, the only way to express a dissatisfaction is through money. Today the industry does not need the hardcore gamer, as evolution has shown. They just need to dazzle a public. In a small private survey I did amongst friends , most of them did not care about the X-Box One issues. Some of them were kids, not used to the old games, others just players that looked at the best critiqued games and then bought every sequel. They don’t get our anger. And they like the idea of an interactive TV system with some games slapped on them. It is them that will make the new X-Box a huge success, not the older gamers. The question is: will you fall to peer pressure or, just like me, keep the old games? I’m not saying my way is the best. I am saying that this problem is a matter of stance and decision. What is yours?
May they smile upon your way!

Welcome to the first post on the comparison of The Lord of the Rings movies versus the books. Before entering the real discussion, the inevitable disclaimer: This is NOT a “I hate the movies” kind of discussion, this is a more ample discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of both medias. The fact is, movies are more visual and books appeal to the imagination. These limitations though, can be the greater benefits of each one. This is exactly what I want to convey in this analysis.

First I will address maybe one of the biggest questions I have received of new Tolkien readers and some comments of old fans: why is Tom Bombadil not in the movies? This charming character of the books has found a way to dig deep into the hearts of many readers and has been somewhat sorely missed in the movies. Apart of the typical excuse (“imagine how long the movies would take if they included him”), I think there is a bigger, second reason for not including this popular wanderer.

Althoug most of you could imagine the physical appearance of Tom, I very much doubt you would have liked the representation. He is a merry being, hopping all the time, bursting into song every minute. He is cheerful and powerful and it seems like he is far away from the dangers of the Ring and the Wraiths behind them. Now remember the tone of the movie: dark and somber, with casual jokes that make (mostly) Merry and Pippin look ridicolous. The detour in the story would have distracted the watcher from the happenings. That is what happens in the book, but somehow in feels like it is woven together so thightly. But remember: the adventure with Tom takes three chapters, and to make the character credible in the movies, it would have taken at least half an hour to make him more or less consistent. And then there is the scene in the Barrows.

This scene for many is not so important, but this is actually the first time Frodo is in actual danger and in actual temptation of putting on the Ring. The riders were tempting him before, but never was he in threat of dying. As a sacrifice he was in mortal peril. The scene is important in the book because it puts the bearer in the position of a choice: abandoning his friends with the power in his hands or singing that song Bombadil taught them a few hours ago. The result is thus the first real victory over the Ring. But in the movies it was not that important. The Nazgûl already seems very dangerous: insects crawl away, their horses are all mistreated and oily. The danger is already clear and easy to see. In the books they are still diminished compared to what they would become in later books, since they are far away from their territory and they can not reveal themselves. But elves still roam in this land, of which they surely are afraid, as witnessed in the part with Gildor.

Thus, including Tom Bombadil would have been unnecessary, since we can not think the character without the barrow-wights. They correspond to each other as part of setting the scene and the danger (and the resistance of hobbits) of the One Ring. He would even have looked ridiculous the way he danced all the time, making the ambience questionable.

For me, him not being in the movies was an excellent choice. I loved the magic that flows in his description and his interesting wordplays, all which require a quite active use of the imagination of oneself. Thus the character remains as of now mystified and incomprehensible to us, making us wonder about his nature even today. After all, it is not only the reader, but also Frodo, that will repeatedly ask: “Who are you?”

He just is.

May they smile upon your way!

Posts navigation

Search for:

Welcome to a blog of gaming, movies, books and some history. In here I explore the stories that have carried us over decades, yes, even centuries, to what defines us today. I hope you enjoy it and comment, I am always open to respond!
This blog is updated whenever possible, once a week.